UN and Climate Taxation

Posted on August 8, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that If the nations of the world are stupid enough to give taxation rights to the UN they do not deserve to exist as nations… and soon will not.

Once the UN has the right to tax individuals in sovereign nations then the governments of those nations become redundant. The services and functions can be easily moved to the higher level of government. The power that the UN will gain will be an even more corrupting force on them.

The UN is already profoundly corrupt. To it’s core. The putrefaction drips from it’s every word. From the self serving Ban Ki Moon to the corrupt Kofi Annan the UN is a entity that exists to perpetuate the power of the corrupt Elite.

But why shouldn’t they be utterly corrupt? There is no oversight of them. They are not held to any standard of personal action. The list of infractions that UN diplomats have committed are enormous. They have been let off Scot free on the most heinous of charges. Diplomatic immunity.

To fight global warming is the reason given to tax us. Then the UN can pass climate legislation that will slow economic progress for the rest of our lives. Regulation that will require ever more taxation to enforce. Increasing the power of the bureaucrats at the UN. The Elite will argue that it is redundant for nation states to exist. The UN can handle the world’s problems. It only needs more money and more power.

For the UN to seize power under the guise of a hoax is elegant. Those that seek to lower the lot of Mankind have at their disposal a perfect hoax. Global warming. They are using it to move sovereignty from the individual in some States and the nation state in others to a world state. World tyranny.

They defend manmade global warming like a religion. Because it is. Like the cigarette companies defending the healthy aspects of cigarette smoking. The fact that there are none is irrelevant. It is the same to global warming proponents. Self interest whether individualist or egoist trumps community interests. Look at the money trail. Who wants your money and to do they what to do with it.

To them the dishonorable means of gaining the world state is acceptable because the ends are so good. They honestly believe that the philosophical progress made in the last few centuries is a bad thing. They believe that the masses are living outside their station in life. Like the precedes of the modern Elite (aristocracy) arguing that such luxuries as sewing needles are too much for the average person to have. It only makes them want more.

Once government is moved farther away from the people it governs the less responsive it is to their concerns. Like all bureaucracy government has great moment of inertia. That moment of inertia protects the bureaucrats from having to actually do anything. They are busy all the time but accomplish nothing.

Because if government solved a problem there would be less need of government. It is not in bureaucrat’s interests to solve problems. It is in their interests to create problems for them to fix. The larger the government the greater the propensity.

The larger goal is to take capital from those that would use it to produce an ever expanding standard of living for the people of the world and squander it by redistributing it. Government projects and lavish vacations for the Elite will be commonplace . Bureaucrats will find more and more uses for money they did not earn. Don’t have the intelligence to earn, but have the hubris to want to control.

If this passes, the lot of the average person in the world will go down but, the lot of the Elite will go up… dramatically. If you think it is a good idea to lower your standard of living so the elite can raise theirs you simply have to back this proposal. But if you think that merit has some standing in the way money is spent you are adamantly against this proposal.

Either way the Elite back it one hundred percent. They are self interested. Does that make them individualists or egoists?

Posted in economy, International Power, Law, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Human Heartedness and Government

Posted on August 4, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to hold another person to a higher standard of personal conduct than one holds himself is not human hearted. To be “not human hearted” in this way, historically, qualifies a person to hold public office.

For all of human history people in power have never been held to a standard of personal conduct that is close to the demands placed on the people. The ancient Greeks with the temporary ostracism, and Romans with the Censors made gestures in the direction of holding powerful people to standards. But those two systems were flawed in that they still hadn’t solved the problem of power of personality or cults of personality.

The ancient Greeks ostracism was a direct attack at charismatic power. If an aristocrat would get too powerful the people would call a vote. They would write yea or nay on a piece of pottery or ostrakon
and count the vote. If the ayes had it the person was sent away for a few years to let his partisans cool and his charismatic power to wane. His possessions were kept safe as were his family and slaves. When he returned he could participate in public life again. This practice visited any number of catastrophes on Athens. From Pericles (with the misshaped head) to Alcibiades the ostracism was a wash.

The Romans had the Censors. Powerful aristocrats that had draconian powers to look into the personal dealings of other aristocrats. Unfortunately with no effective public oversight the Censors used their offices to garner bribes and indulgences from the powerful people they were supposed to regulate. An early form of regulatory capture. Both pernicious and both inevitable if the conditions are right. Human nature being what it is.

Human nature is unchangeable. When faced with the choice of; Let someone burn you with a cigarette and they will give a million dollars, to charity the charity of your choice, for each hour of torture. No one would submit to it. Unless they were sadomasochistic. Despite the obvious societal good from the windfall to charity…. But give another that choice over someone else and the perspective is widened considerably. They would have no problem with this Faustian bargain. The fact that they feel no pain when the cigarette is applied is irrelevant. Or so they will say. It is universal and it is human nature.

To decry human nature is foolish as it is to decry gravity. Without it we could not exist as we are. The wise lawgiver looks human nature in the eye and works with it. Doesn’t try to change it in others while waxing his own.

That has been the problem with governments through the ages. The Elite try to force others to live as the Elite wish and the Elite live as they wish too. This sets up a fundamental tension in human governments. That tension is the underlying energy source for class struggle.

The ancient Chinese had it close. Despite their arguments and the internecine squabbles of the States the Chinese philosophers in classic times had it by the tail. That their governments ignored the good teachings and embraced the bad is just a function of human nature….

Perhaps, if some nation at some time held their leaders to the same standards they hold the people to, this fundamental tension would be relived. So maybe, to be not human hearted should disqualify a person from public office.

Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Markets as Ecology

Posted on August 1, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the ultimate example of capitalism is nature. Does the flower address the bee’s charity? No… the flower addresses the bee’s self interest. In that way the bee gets a need met and the flower gets a need met. A basic capitalist exchange.

Nature is filled with other examples of capitalist exchanges throughout. From ants protecting a fig tree to people planting cucumbers that is the way the ecosystem has grown. One species of fauna eating a species of flora and thus spreads the seeds of it’s preferred food. Small Wins adding up to a great win for the ecosystem.

There are examples of fraud in the natural world, (corpse flowers and pitcher plants are a few) as there are examples of monopoly (miles of forest… all one aspen tree, duplicated over and over, monopolizing the habitat). The environment around us is rife with examples of the market economy complete with division of labor. (Our little self interested bee handle’s the pollinating segment of the tomato production process).

On a meta scale plants produce sugars and oxygen, and animals use those sugars and oxygen to produce locomotion to move plant‘s seeds and pollen. On a personal scale soy produces oil, sheep-wool, dogs-protection, apple trees-apples… the list is endless. The division of labor in nature is there for anyone to see… if they only open their eyes and look. Marx pointed out that capitalism (the market system) is dynamic. As is nature.

The term capitalist and markets are human words created to explain a phenomenon. There is nothing unnatural at all about exchanging one thing for another or specializing in a job. That is what separated cats from dogs millions of years ago. There is something unnatural about demanding charity from individuals in the form of slavery to government. Benign or otherwise.

I have never heard a complaint about how the flower exploit’s the bee‘s labor. In fact if someone did complain that the flowers were exploiting the bee’s labor and getting rich doing it I suspect people would give the argument the weight it deserves…. None. When we look at a phenomenon from a distance we have perspective. We can see the big picture. But an attribute of perspective is that the closer we get to something the less of it we can see. Like the story of the three blind men describing an elephant.

I can imagine a bee flying into a hive. Tired and frazzled. Birds tried to eat her all day. The flowers were picked over. Her wings are tired and her stinger is sore. She lands with a paltry amount of pollen and nectar for the receivers. They complain she must be slacking off to have so little nectar… It would be easy to convince her that the flowers were exploiting her labor. Then further to convince her the flowers need to be controlled and many would have to be killed in the revolution. In the long term… Would it be in the bee’s best interest to follow, and kill many of the flowers? Does it make a diffrence if the flowers trying to convince the worker bee that other flowers care nothing and do nothing to help the bee cope with, Verona mite, tracheal mite or even the dreaded colony collapse disease?

Today most people know what would happen if we allowed an open river of effluent to run down our streets. We also know what would happen if vermin lived too close to us… Black Plague. Or some other deadly disease. By not taking care to have a full waste cycle we open opportunities for the smallest players in the ecological market to exploit the niche. They will step in and use the nutrients available to them with devastating results for other larger players in the ecological market.

Government policies that restrict supply or demand for a service or thing forces inefficiency into the system. This drives capital into the streets so to speak. This inefficiency is like effluent running down the streets. The wasted capital (effluent) becomes a source of funding (nutrients) for the underground economy. Government policies directly incentivize the underground economy. With the negative externalities that all underground economies have.

Ironically in some countries people are more virtuous to each other in underground economies than they are in the open markets. Because in the underground economies participants are held to their actions. If someone lies or cheats, if they are not executed, they will be ostracized. In the open market they are protected by government policies. Unenlightened policies that are tantamount to flushing effluent into the open streets.

But as with Tracheal mites, it is better to keep the hive free, than to use menthol to control them.

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Law, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Individualism vs Egoism

Posted on July 29, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when a millionaire ten times over says he or she will hurt the rich and help me… I know I am being lied to. Because for a rich person to hurt the rich violates human nature. They would have to hurt themselves. No one hurts themselves… No one. Unless they are mentally deranged. I hope not many of our lawmakers are mentally deranged… but their actions an the other hand…

John Kerry is a perfect example. He went to New Zealand to buy a 7 million dollar yacht. (Apparently he doesn’t like union workers in Massachusetts). Then he moored it in Rhode Island to avoid paying the five hundred thousand dollar sales tax bill and the seventy thousand dollar a year excise (luxury) tax, (that Kerry supports). Here is an example of a man who claims to help the poor by hurting the rich. I.e. Raising taxes on the rich. Apparently he doesn’t believe himself rich… People who have exponentially less money then him are rich. Their taxes are going up. But the billionaire is not.

The best part of this story is that a reporter asked Kerry; if he docked the boat in Massachusetts would he have to pay the Massachusetts tax then. Kerry responded, “It depends on who owns the boat.” [A very rare example of honesty in a lawgiver.]

The premise of this statement is that some people are subject to taxation and others are not. I ask you… What incentive does this set up in society? Where the people who set tax law are not held to that law? Is it likely, self interested, human beings will keep tax law fair if they are not subject to it? Of course not.

It is not human nature to hold the interests of others as high as one hold’s his or her own. In this instance Hsun Ching is correct that the congenital nature of Man is evil… Self centered. Philosophies that hold human nature to be wrong and force whatever the Elite believe, today, is “virtue” are flawed. To have at the core of a philosophy of ruling people a premise that is diametrically opposed to human nature is like building a gasoline motor and trying to run water in it. It is flawed. Not the motor… or the water… just that they will not work together.

Over and over we have examples of why people cannot self police yet we staunchly believe that the Elite will violate human nature. I.e. be un-self-interested. Even when we have grievous examples like the one above before us many say; “so what.” To them tomorrow is a white fog. Impossible to predict and mysterious as a Stephen King novel. I dare say too many people are of this persuasion. When the fruit of their nonchalance is visited on them they will lament that it was unforeseeable.

“How could this possibly have happened? I voted for the same people over and over but things never got better. They only got worse and worse.” is the lament of the willfully ignorant.

Another sophist argument that I hear and am dumbfounded at is that I personally have it ok now so why worry about the future. To make this argument and believe it a person must live in a one dimensional world. A point in time with no past no future, and no other possibilities then what is.

I love the way de Tocqueville called American individualism as opposed to egoism; “The doctrine of self interest rightly understood.” What a beautiful way to explain the truly civilized person. Someone who understands that sometimes we have to subordinate immediate gratification for long term gratification. To understand that self interest is intricately tied to societal interest. And that safe streets are in our own best interests. Of course the progressives are working to undermine this character trait in the American ethos.

The Elite are not held to the law in most places and times on the Earth. Their self interest need not be rightly understood. If they are not subject to a law will they give it the same scrutiny that they would if they were subject to it?

The modern Elite (progressives) seek to change people from individualists to egoists. Then the egoists will willingly forge the chains for the Elite and even bind themselves with them. Egoism is stupid self interest. It requires that one not think critically about our leaders. An egoist lives in a singularity. Egoism makes a person think a job flipping burgers is beneath him but being on the public dole is honorable. An egoist believes that the world owes him or her. An egoist calls another greedy because he doesn’t want to give more of his hard earned money to the lazy egoist but the egoist will scream like a scalded cat if a dollar of his money is missing.

By the way… did you hear about Barney Frank flipping out over not getting a senior citizens discount that he was not entitled to?

It cost him an extra dollar for the ride.

Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Environmentalism

Posted on July 25, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the environmentalists always look at everything as a zero sum game. They couch every choice as an either-or. In doing so they always overlook alternatives that would enhance both sides. Instead of destroying the interests of landowners in the name of the environment. In doing so they ensure the destruction of that which they seek to save.

When the market system was first being debated. Some argued that it would smooth out the differences among men and lower their disposition to violence. As I have said before, the guy who sells sofas doesn’t care what color your skin is… all he cares about is the color of the money. Hobbes and Voltaire was of this persuasion. Others argued that some lost while others gained. Rousseau took this side. The argument has raged from then to now. It lands in our laps with Rousseau’s side ceding some ground.

Most educated people realize that the market system is not a zero sum game. When people are involved in the market system their wealth is much higher then if they participated in some other system. The caste system, Where distributed justice says that the goods of society are distributed to those according to caste. Or the feudal system where the goods of society are distributed depending on patronage and parentage. Or still the communist system where the goods of society are distributed by one’s political power. All these other systems have one thing in common. Their version of distributive justice has, at it’s core, that the goods of society go to those with power. And from those that produce. This sets up a pernicious incentive that feeds back and lowers the economic output of every person. While the market system distributes to those with, at least, an eye to their production.

This analogy can be applied to environmental science as well. It is becoming obvious that economic prosperity and a healthy ecosystem can go hand in hand. It is also historical truth that countries that have overly powerful Elite have a very poor track record with the environment. When a small percent of the people make all of the decisions they can simply order environmental disasters be created far from their homes. They have economic incentive to disregard environmental concerns and little incentive to protect the environment of their slaves.

But all the means the environmentalists propose move power from those that live near to those who live far away. From the people to the Elite. They claim if so and so project goes through an owl, ent or sage grouse will cease to exist.

There is a controversy of just this nature going on in the US Midwest. It is over wind towers to produce clean energy or a sage grouse that is loosing the ecosystem it needs to survive. The environmentalists are arguing that the sage grouse must be protected and the BLM land should be “protected” exclusively for them.

To me the obvious answer is to place as many towers as possible. Then replant sage brush around them leaving only access roads to the towers for maintenance. The more land that is taken by towers and replanted with perfect habitat for sage grouse that more you ensure the survival of the sage grouse. In perpetuity. The economic value of the towers will ensure the protection of the land.

The environmentalists way forces land to be “protected.” But they never think about the consequences. ( Or maybe they do). The incentive is set up for the locals to, at best, ignore the interests of the sage grouse. But people being people, when our interests are subdued for the interests of others, we resent it. Especially people who are used to being free. Outright hostility may even be shown. No matter the best or the worst the interests of the sage grouse will hurt under the benevolent “protection” of the overly powerful State. Just like family farms have languished under the benevolent “protection” of the State.

Eventually the “protected” land will be put to some other important use and the sage grouse will go extinct. By putting people in charge who have less and less direct impact from the consequences of their decisions, give them less and less oversight and, you have a recipe for environmental degradation… down the road.

The very policies of the environmentalists will destroy that which they seek to protect… Because the benevolent protection of the State is neither benevolent nor protection.

Posted in economy, Law, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Capitalism

Posted on July 22, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there has always been capitalism. The market system may be a relatively new invention but capitalism is as old as humanity. From the first time Ug traded Grug a spear head for a dear head there has been capitalism.

The market system has it’s roots in the time just before Adam Smith. It was the invention of the factory and the division of labor factories brought about that made production cheap and of higher quality. These innovations along with a capitalistic ethos have made our modern society so prosperous.

Imagine if the Romans had discovered the market system. Today Humanity would be striding among the stars. But they didn’t. It was after the last gasp of Roman Civilization (about a century after the fall of Constantinople) that the market system was being born in Denmark. The market system has evolved and devolved in steps since then.

But capitalism is a consequence of mankind’s social nature. It is a fact of our sociability that we mingle and trade. Each getting a need met in the trade. The one a plow and the other funds to build another plow and to feed his family for the day. Each getting more than he had before in the trade. No matter if the product or service is a spear head or fiber optic service the result is the same. It is a win-win.

That is the driving force of capitalism. That we all win when we engage in it. The buyer gets a good or service that in some way enhances his life and the seller gets to make a livelihood. Both have a positive outcome from the transaction. The small personal gains translate to huge societal gains in the aggregate.

Taxation lowers the good for each person. Some profit is diverted from new production or personal wealth to government use. Or some good or service costs more than it otherwise would, The good is lessened by taxation. Regardless of the societal good gained by the service paid for by the tax. There is a cost to a tax.

It is a valid role of government to protect the persons and property of it’s citizens. To that end taxation is a necessary evil. But it is never stopped at that end. Taxes are like an unstoppable tide. They rise and rise until they have drowned economic progress. Then the lawmakers responsible lament the lack of economic progress. But more importantly… the Elite lament the lack of tax revenues. So they raise taxes more…

This is because; if taxation lowers the good to the point that it is equal to or greater than the positive effects from all transactions, transactions will only go on, “under the table.” Off balance sheet transactions become more and more prevalent, when government taxation or other interference in markets are too onerous, erasing the benefit of a free exchange transaction.

If, a country want’s to measure how much it’s interference in the markets effect their markets, they need only compare the size of the black market to the legal market. If there is almost no black market the government is doing a good job not interfering in the markets. If there is a large black market then the government must look into it’s policies else it will face poverty and hunger in the future.

Capitalism is like air. The level of economic activity being like the pressure… The positive outcome is like the oxygen in the air. You can have plenty of air pressure but if there is no oxygen, (Because of government interference) then you cannot breathe. But if there is plenty of oxygen but little pressure you can breathe… If labored.

In other words… Business can go on in a poor country if the government doesn’t, tax too much, impose unnecessary rules, licenses, or other ways governments cause friction in their markets. The profit motive is still there. Even though business conditions are poor. But when government makes doing business too expensive to make a profit…

The point being that government policies have a direct bearing on the state of their economies. To blame capitalism for poor performance is like knowingly depleting the oxygen in a closed room then blaming the inanimate oxygen itself for our shortness of breath…

… if you use rhetoric, like “capitalism is dead.” no one points out the idiocy of the statement, and I believe it…who‘s the fool?

Posted in economy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

End of Socialism?

Posted on July 18, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the time of the progressives, socialists and communists is coming to a close. With the wide dissemination of the internet and the dramatically enhanced access to information it offers people will increasingly be lifted from the ignorance enforced by the progressives, socialists and communists. Light will shine on their philosophy.

Today the power of that faction appears to be at it’s apex. The US is controlled almost exclusively by progressives. The President and both houses of Congress have sizable majorities of progressives. Most are democrat but some are republican. The Supreme Court is at the tipping point. A few more hard leftists and the job will be done there too.

But the power of progressives, socialists and communists lays in ignorance. Not of reading writing or arithmetic but in history, economics and current events. These are the ideas that undermine progressivism. People who have not been steeped in the tea of communism and the “benefits” to mankind that it offers see the world differently.

We have our eyes open. We are pragmatic not dogmatic. Progressives, socialists and communists are dogmatic. Even as they point the finger of dogmatism at every one who disagrees with them. But they fail to see their own dogmatism.

To follow a political philosophy that has at it’s core the fact that when it gains control millions of people will have to be murdered to “protect” the revolution requires quite a bit of faith. Those egoists, people who refuse to follow the tenets of social justice and communal salvation, will have to go. They have all done it. From Vladimir Ulanoff to Pol Pot. Moreover they will always to do it when ever they get power. It is ignorance of this fact that feeds the left. Ignorance of the atrocities that they have done and pledge to do if they ever get power.

But the ignorance that feeds progressivism, communism and socialism doesn’t stop there. Every modern event must be couched in just the right terms and in the right way. Until recently the progressives have controlled the unbiased media. The have controlled the horizontal, the vertical, they have controlled what we have seen. Welcome to the outer reaches of the progressive limits. (There are none).

US collages have a plurality of progressive, socialist and communist professors. They aim at convincing every student to follow their pernicious philosophy. The fact that most don’t is a testament to common sense. But it is also a testament to the power of knowledge. Those who know the history of progressivism in the US and it’s ties to Fascist socialism will recognize the parallels today. People who understand the difference between rhetoric and truth will see through the veil of half truths the unbiased media place in front of us. Folks that have access to the information to dull the blade of ignorance are less liable to be misled. Too many of us will refuse to sit in the cave and watch pretty shadows dance on the wall.

That is why it is imperative the progressive, communists and socialists control the internet. They must keep us ignorant, angry and dependent. Their power depend on it. The Elite that run the show on the left know this. If people knew the truth they would loose their power in a heart beat.

Fortunately people are waking up. The actions of the progressives are enlightening the people to the reality of who they are. The mask has been lifted a little. It should be totally removed. Then the people would recoil in horror at who they have voted for and supported in the past.

When that happens the progressives will have breathed their last breath, The socialists will have disheartened the last soul and the tyranny of communism will evaporate from the Earth. All this good from one thing… Light shining on reality.

Didn’t someone else say that evil grows in darkness and withers in the light?

Posted in Group Politics, International Power, media, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sustainability

Posted on July 15, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the Progressive Elite want to force the people of the world to reset our way living. They believe that we must move out of our large homes that require us to have cars and move into high density apartments. Within walking distance to amenities. In that way, even if we are too stupid to do it ourselves, we can just be pushed to it. How do I know this… they are saying it on WSJR today, Sunday July 11, 2010.

By using government to drive up costs for energy, housing, transportation, etc… forces people to move closer together… to cut down on those costs. Taxing carbon is one way to artificially force up the cost of energy. Regulating the economy of cars (CAFE standards) is a way to drive up the cost of basic transportation. Government policies that create high unemployment rates drive people to accept dependence on government. There are many ways government can force society to this “more sustainable” way of living. The key is enough government power and the right people in charge.

The American Constitution forbids such power in the hands of our elected leaders… but today the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” If five people on the Supreme court agree… Voila, the Constitution is re-interpreted. The barn wall probably needed repainted again. The people in charge are critical…

People who are willing to move society away from independence and comfort to discomfort and dependence. People who, if it is needed, would eliminate those that would stand in the way of the revolution (fundamental change). People who have no squeamish qualms about the means. A cabal with only the goal in sight. The progressive Elite.

The progressive Elite constantly remind us that it is not possible for everyone on the planet to live as Americans do… Comfortably. Lower class Americans live better than middle class Europeans. Europeans know it and are resentful. But are not willing to give up dependence on the State. They are willing to give up personal independence and personal comfort for the support of the State. For them it is a good trade. But when they see the positive effects of the other side of the equation they are resentful.

Resentment is a tool to the progressive Elite. They make people resent the wealth of the capitalist. But keep the people ignorant of the avarice of government in both money and power. “After all comrade, would you deny a pig a place for his head?” People who are resentful are in a fog. Overwhelming emotions have that effect on us. People in a fog are easy to herd and then marshal into an army.

Like the Brown Shirts. They were resentful of the wealth of the Jews. (Wealth the Jews earned from being Capitalists).The National Socialist Party turned that resentment into hate and used the hate to herd the whole of Germany into one camp. Then the faction that controlled the camp marshaled the Germen people into a killing machine that visited great sorrow on humanity. Hate and resentment are bread and butter to progressives, communists and socialists.

But today capitalists are called racists, haters, bigots and everything that is an anathema to a capitalist. The progressive Elite tell us we should hate the greedy racist capitalist. While to be a true capitalist is to be the exact opposite of a bigot. Bigotry is bad for business. Bigotry is a luxury that is reserved for progressives, socialists and communists. When you sell a guy a sofa you don’t care about the color of his face… only the color of his money. The market system is the greatest eliminator of racism there has ever been.

The progressive Elite like to use bigotry to “fight” bigotry. After all, isn’t “affirmative action” a form of State sponsored bigotry? The means taints the ends. The progressive Elite don’t care if it does. The ends are so glittering. They are certain they are right… “So personal is their knowledge.“

Isn’t that the definition of a zealot though? Someone who looks at the end and disregards the means. The means being subservient to the end. And the end is total power… Thrasymachus would applaud.

Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Societal Structure

Posted on July 11, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government is one third of a structure that we live our lives in. (The other two being tradition and modernity). The form of government determines the real and potential standard of living of the people that live under it. Historically the more oppressive – the lower the potential. But no matter the form it has great influence on the structure.

That is one of the reasons I am so amazed by anarchists. They seek to destroy the structure. No matter it’s form. Never thinking for a moment, regardless how effectively they destroy the structure, that another will quickly rise to replace it. Most probably in the form of a tyranny (as a reaction to the chaos). Setting them back in their goal of total liberty.

The reason the structure will rise so rapidly is that, as Socrates said through Plato, we are social by our nature. It is our sociability that provide us the goods we need. In his day the division of labor was simple. There was a {warrior (and farming) division and a religious class}- Citizens, and a slave class. Slavery kept labor costs vary low. Very low labor cost meant little division of labor. That kept innovation low and prices for commodities high. But although there was a simple division of labor the benefit of society was an improved standard of living. Socrates and his fellows didn’t have the philosophical framework to understand that an economy is not a zero sum game. But they did recognize the value of our social natures. They didn’t realize that economies are dynamic. Like living organisms. They thrive when watered, aired and fed. They dry up and shrivel when they are not properly cared for. Economies rise and fall with innovation. To the ancient philosophers economies were static.

Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth Of Nations” was an innovation in the way people thought about markets and trade. Of course he didn’t produce his work in a vacuum. But he articulated his ideas well enough to start a new area of scientific enquiry.

This book, The Wealth of Nations, hints at an underlying law in human societal structure. One of the great energy sources of all human societal structure is our want to get ahead. (Greed). Every one wants better. When the governmental structure was such that it quashed this part of human nature. It was, and always will be, to protect the power of the Elite. The Elite always want a structure that ensures them their “rightful” power.

The irony of the ancient societal myth is never mentioned in anything I have read. That is, To be a citizen one must have means. But to want means is to have avarice. (And that) The labors of society rightfully belong to the Aristocracy. Anything they allow the peasants to keep is magnanimous (big in the soul). The producers of those goods had no right to the products of their labors. For them to want to keep their own products was greedy. But to want what one did not produce or help to produce was not.

Just like the rhetoric coming from the socialists, progressives and communists. The products of a person’s labor rightfully belong to the Elite. For those that labor to want a share is for producers to be greedy. If the State needs the funds, to buy votes for the ruling faction, it is the States right.

Communists, socialists and progressives want to bind society their leadership. They know, (if not explicitly), that to do that they must bring back the structure that was lost by embracing markets. Markets are natural levelers of men. As buyers you and I don’t care about the seller’s race, creed, ethnicity, tattoos, etc… all you care about is the price and the quality of a good or service. [ala Hume and Voltair] That is why the Statist Elite want to get off the market system. Markets have lowered sovereignty too low. (As far as they are concerned). Far be it… from wanting “Progress,” in truth they want an Retreat. They want to move humanity back to a time when the Elite were kings and the people were slaves. They long to move us back to that halcyon time.

The trick is to make the people believe that Elite are on their side. Just as Julius Caesar did to destroy the Republic and create the Empire. He took Roman societal structure back from republican rule to the arbitrary rule of tyrants. He made the people love him by giving out money, forcing the forgiving of debts and enacting some much needed reform. (No one is totally evil or totally good). In doing so he earned the absolute and blind following of the Roman people. He then used that following to make himself emperor. Fundamentally changing Roman societal structure. Today, history is repeating itself and, our historians are silent.

It all boils down to one fact… What kind of structure do you want your children and their children living in?

Posted in Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Arizona Law and Illegal Immigration Law

Posted on July 8, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the stance of the Federal government as stated by Eric Holder is idiotic. To say that state authorities have no ability to arrest people found to be in violation of federal law opens a whole can of worms.

Is this a blanket statement? If it is then what about machine gun laws? They are federal. If a local law enforcement officer comes across a person brandishing a machine gun, that officer wouldn’t be allowed to even notify federal law enforcement about it… according to Holder. Let alone arrest him or her for it. Does this make sense to you?

If it is not a blanket statement then why the constitutional carve out for illegal immigrants? What legal basis could there be for it? So, if Mr. Holder claims that there is a carve out of federal law for illegal aliens, then is it because, there is a clear need for them in the US. One that is so important that it outweighs the mass of legal precedent. Legal precedent that is… all people are equal, under the law. Or has it changed to… all groups, are equal. There are some that are more equal then others. Illegal Aliens for example…

But if the administration is right, that local and State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal law, then I expect people will be getting out their printing presses and printing up $100 dollar bills. Only the FBI can enforce Federal law under the Holder leadership. A person could knowingly pass a printed counterfeit $20.00 bill and the Federal government would frown on a local police officer taking notice.

Slavery is another example. Does it make sense for local and State officials to turn a blind eye to a slavery ring operating in the US? Say…Trafficking in young girls? Under Holders assertion local and State police would be barred from reporting Human traffickers to federal authorities. To do so would make it less likely that people would report crime to the police. Using Holder’s logic.

What if Local police came across a treason plot that was about to be hatched? Holder would argue that it isn’t local police authority to intervene. If the government was overthrown and a communist regime set up, that then murdered twenty five million Americans, according to Eric Holder, that would be the price for liberty…. Or something. All to overturn a law Mr. Holder has not read.

No… Holder and the administrations want to use illegal immigration as a lever. A lever to use to move the American people to accept “comprehensive” reform. The law, as it is written, is “unsustainable.”

The definition of “comprehensive” is making all the illegal immigrants citizens… again. It had such a negative effect on illegal immigration the last few times it was tried it should definitely be tried again, and again, and again… Government loves to re-try things that have failed in the past. The bigger the failure the more it must try again.

The definition of “unsustainable” is anything the government wants to take over and control. If the government wants to take over and control health care they call it unsustainable. A word that, I am sure, has been thoroughly polled and tested… for it’s public palatability.

The real issue is that a faction of the American political Elite see an opportunity. They believe, if they make millions of poorly educated people who can’t speak English citizens, then the new citizens will reward that faction with their political support. It is not totally unfounded. Most of the poor and uneducated in South America vote reliably for communist governments. The faction of the American Elite that want to make them citizens agree with communist philosophy… they just call it progressivism. Their (illegal immigrants and the Elite’s) interests seem to be aligned.

Of course this would make a true underclass in the USA. Something the progressives have wanted for years. Real inequality… Not the ginned up, pretend variety they have been claiming is in the US. Real poverty, enforced by a language barrier and an education ceiling. Trapped in poverty and ignorance the Elite believe the Latinos will keep them in office forever…

Forever trapping the “undocumented workers” in poverty. Because to ever let them get up would undermine the power of the Elite… And if the power of the Elite is ever threatened… The Elite become dangerous even to their old allies.

Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment